You did not read it. Do you know how I know?
I know because, if you had read my post, you would've seen this part of it:
And, if you had seen that part of the post, you would've realized that the "dodgy data" you're referring to comes from your own government—whose publicly reported statistics directly contradict two of you central claims about covid stats for the UK.
Specifically, you said
But your own government says that the number of covid deaths tallied under that definition is currently 124,987. Do you believe your government removed 15k deaths from that list between Feb 19 and today? Does that sound plausible to you? Curiously, the number you attribute to the dead-within-28-days definition corresponds extremely closely to the number the UK govt. instead reports for the number of deaths where covid was on the death certificate. Do you think that is a coincidence? A conspiracy?Since this pandemic began until 19/02/2021 the UK has within 28 days registered 140,160 deaths
A more plausible explanation is that you did not bother to verify your assumptions, and therefore got the data mixed up. The figure you took is from The Economist's tally, which uses the ONS's figures for deaths with covid on the death certificate. That is why the figure the Economist reports is larger than the one your own govt. reports for the dead-within-28-days definition, and so close to the figure your govt. currently reports for the number of deaths with covid on the death certificate. Do you understand what I am saying? You have gotten the death certificates figure and the dead-within-28-days figure mixed up.
Your government says 124,987 people died within 28 days of a positive covid test. The Economist estimates that, in roughly the same time span, there were approximately 124,000 excess deaths in Britain. Tell me, does that sound like a massive overcount due to using the dead-within-28-days figure?
What the above strongly suggests is 1. the dead-within-28-days definition does not, in practice, result in overcounting covid deaths, and 2. the excess deaths metric, if interpreted as only reflecting covid deaths, represents a substantial undercount of covid deaths, compared to data from death certificates. This is what I explained to you in two separate posts, using Sweden and the UK as examples.
In light of the foregoing, I think I am within my rights to describe you as lazy, sloppy, and bad at both reading and thinking. I think that is an accurate description of a person who has made the completely avoidable and extremely stupid mistakes you've made here.
Moving on, you said:
If you had read the source you claim to be using, you would've seen this:The like-for-like source for my data is here, which allows a like-for-like comparison (though weirdly for some reason Italy's data has reverted to October, it was to November previously which is where I got the numbers I quoted to you): https://www.economist.com/graphic-de...deaths-tracker
Yes PHE are doing a more advanced modelling, calculating based on generally increasing life expectancies and fewer deaths in general so not using the five year average that is typical but there's no like-for-like comparison between that and other countries.
The Economist conducts the same general type of modeling as PHE. The figures they report are adjusted for general trends in a similar manner. The discrepancy between the Economist's estimate of excess deaths and the one from PHE that I posted a screenshot of, is that the Economist tries to estimate excess deaths for Britain as a whole, whereas PHE estimates excess deaths for England.
The Economist's analysis, of course, does not permit a like-for-like comparison between countries, even if you disregard the issue with different time periods being analyzed. The reason, as I have explained several times, is that the excess deaths metric obscures differences and differential shifts in the underlying causes of death; even though the method is the same, the underlying data that it's applied to is not comparable enough. By definition, the metric cannot be used to attribute specific causes of death with any degree of certainty. You keep going on about Russia, because you clearly don't realize how irrelevant that argument is. You cannot use Russia's excess deaths figure to determine how many people have actually died of covid; all you can do is note that the official tally is probably very wrong. This is irrelevant to the present discussion, because the present discussion concerns western nations.
My "notion" as you describe it is that excess deaths cannot be used to attribute deaths to covid for the purpose of international comparisons. For Italy, this has no relevance to the present discussion, about the culpability of your govt. in the preventable deaths of tens of thousands of people. You cannot credibly blame the Italian govt. for the situation during the first wave, because Italy was hit first—and hardest—with next to no warning. The UK, in contrast, had several more weeks to prepare—and chose to initially pursue a reckless herd immunity strategy, losing precious time and dooming tens of thousands to death, before being forced to change course due to severe criticism. It made similar mistakes again in autumn, and, later, in winter—deliberately implementing deadly policy due to incompetence and chancery.Your notion that healthcare crashing in a country by losing control of the pandemic means you can't use excess deaths as a metric, because they died from other means due to healthcare crashing is absolutely preposterous. Deaths caused by the healthcare system crashing are deaths caused by the pandemic, whether the deceased was infected or not if they would have survived were it not for the pandemic they absolutely should be counted.